(03-08-2023 02:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 01:56 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 04:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 03:26 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  Lol. A non-accusation accusation that I'm a paid Big Ten poster. You sound like CNN shrieking about anyone that disagrees with them being a Kremlin asset.

As to "I guess Michigan and Ohio State representing 36.7% of the total Big Ten value didn't strike you as, well, disproportionate?" no, it doesn't strike me as disproportionate at all. You just keep revealing how little you understand about the Big Ten. The Wall Street journal's valuation of universities as if they were pro sports teams has zero bearing on what decisions those schools are making. I guess Michigan and Ohio State would rather, instead of playing in Chicago, DC, NYC, LA, Minneapolis, Pitt/Philly, you know, where their alumni all all, play in Starkville or Nashville or Knoxville or Columbia (either). And the UT OU analog is poor because Texas saw ZERO of the conference as institutional peers, and only sees Oklahoma as a football peer. This is not the case in the Big Ten with Michigan and Ohio State. Texas viewed Baylor as a worthless anchor only in the conference due to political pressure - Michigan does not feel this way about Northwestern.

You keep saying stuff like every penny is essential yet Michigan refuses all in stadium advertising. ND values independence over more money in a conference. Penn State donors funded a hockey team, and it was the same amount A&M will pay to buyout Fisher someday soon. The Texas schools just need more of those essential pennies, then they'll figure it all out in football, just wait. But hey, take pride in being part of a conference that has people embezzle money from hospitals to buy recruits (https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...zzlement). That's not gross at all, what a great cultural advantage.

And you'll continue to be wrong because all you think the SEC has some master plan to be the world's best semi pro athletic conference, and literally no one except the SEC wants that future.
Let the SEC screw off to play pretend pro sports and send Vanderbilt to the ACC. The Big Ten isn't going to destroy what it stands for to chase 10 years of slightly incremental athletics revenue that doesn't move the needle for them and won't change their performance on the field anyway. Michigan, OsU, and PSU will be perfectly happy to go 10-2 or 11-1 and then eventually lose to whatever the best SEC team is in the playoff. This has been the status quo for 20 years and it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.

Well for an alleged Vanderbilt fan you sure spend a helluva lot of time arguing Big 10 positions.

And BeepBeep, I haven't been wrong. It's the Big 10 view of the world that is upside down sport. You, we, everyone is headed to the same place with this. Amateurism is dead, professionalism is in, and we, meaning the Big 10 too, by a Scotus ruling are very likely to apply it in the form of pay, to go along with the NIL endorsement money which is anything but amateur. So I'd say the WSJ valuations are apropos. And I'd say your notion of the Big 10's separate way is a lot of hooey. I don't see Ohio State and Penn State giving up big time college football and I don't see them playing in a more Ivy styled lesser league, which by the way the Ivy League is now under lawsuit for failure to give scholarships. What a fascinating modern world we live in if our minds are not living in the Victorian era!

And you missed my statement...again. I didn't say Michigan and Ohio State would be in the SEC or playing in Starkville. I very plainly stated another consolidation would happen down the road in 15 to 20 years and it wouldn't have anything to do with conferences. So, you are creating another straw man rather than admit you are wrong. You must be under 35 because nobody educated before that time period makes these kinds of representations. I don't care where you went to school the education is lacking. I saw the same things in graduate work when I was at Emory. And I know the Big 10. I spent my early life in the U.P. at Sault Sainte Marie and on the other side in Kapuskasing, Ontario.

Where did I say the SEC had a master plan? More BS from you! What has been called that by Frank is the fact that I had family involved in the realignment in '90-92 and I simply knew who we went after then and we've stayed after them and have all of them other than Clemson for which South Carolina was a substitute and Florida State. Looks like that may happen too. We'll see.

And as for Big 10 shills they were used on the Maryland site in 2010-11, on the Oklahoma site more recently, and that is where an IP trace took the line to the Big 10 in Chicago. So, I guess I have reason huh? Your talking points are all the ham-handed ones I've gotten from them before. Frank has his own ideas, he's okay. The office boys and gals stick to the sheet right down to the terminology. Guilty dogs bark!

Good luck. Heck I may wind up right about a 3x24 and I put that out about 2 years ago and about 6 months before Wilner ran with it. It just seemed logical for addressing issues pertaining to the remnant. I was right about the B1G raid on the PAC 12. So much for partners and friends. High standards indeed! Seriously, you'll rescue the core and that counts.

Don't full yourself though about Big 10 standards. You had them. The court rulings are blowing them away, for all of us. But I also followed recruiting violations for over a decade. Everyone who recruited the region I worked cheated. Only Vanderbilt and Duke, neither of which was trying in those days stayed clean, with one more exception. Kudos to Bill Curry at Ga Tech. I never found anything on him, and I'm pretty sure it was because he was clean. So don't lecture me on Big 10 standards. I know better.

It's amusing to me that in your hurry to declare me a paid propogandist for the Big Ten, and thus be able to easily dismiss my arguments on the basis (ignoring your impugning of my education), you miss the entire point that a Vanderbilt fan WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH SIMILAR POSITIONS AS THE BIG TEN. It should be obvious that this path of SEC expansion has given us more money (that we don't need) at the cost of decreasing our odds to win titles while (if you're correct) hastening the day of consolidation at which point we're conference shopping. Name a way that Vanderbilt is better off today competing in conference athletics than it was in 1985, 1995, 2005, etc. Spoiler alert, it's not better off.

Besides, how do we know you're not a paid shill for ESPN? I keep hearing ham handed talking points about ESPN/Disney forming a monopoly on ads rates in the south east, why is this something a fan should care about? You know that in 2034/35 it's possible that the SEC leaves ESPN/Disney for money from another broadcaster right? They aren't irrevocably married. Why are you such an ardent supporter of the SEC taking actions that help ESPN/Disney so much? Especially given your argument that sports rights demographically collapse in 2036+, so why is it so important to destroy what exists today to squeeze out a little extra money for 12 years? See, that's how I know you're well over 35, you are a big fan of destroying to extract that last tiny bits of value for your favored entities as opposed to doing anything sustainable, and those that come after you can pick up the pieces to rebuild. Heaven forbid we don't grab every last dollar available.

1. I dismiss your arguments for their incoherency and lack of logic.

2. I am retired from a corporate life which only tangentially touched on athletics and retired from a nonprofit life which was wholly focused away from anything corporate or educational.

3. Life afforded me opportunities to experience exactly what happens in making deals at the corporate level, and exactly how government operates with the marginalized, as well as non profit organizations which were essentially corporate. And having relations involved in athletic realignment became an interest for me because I knew how near and dear they were to the hearts of devoted alumni regardless of conference affiliation and I saw what was essentially a hostile corporate takeover of them in action and was fascinated by the lack of recognition as to what was going on, their inability to see how the lure of money was being used to create new associations (product placement), how some SKUs where being culled, and the only thing these college educated fans could see to do was blame each other's conference.

4. My disappointment was in the fact that nobody tagged the corporate raiders for what was happening. Since the same has gone on against middle class business in this country for the last half of my life, and the wealth here has moved in my lifetime from 85% of the capital being held by the top 3% to 97% of it being held by the top 3% I had hoped that when universally beloved and cherished institutions which served as communal touchstones to a common heritage for so many were screwed with to such a high degree by the same entities which were destroying private business and eroding their way of life that a light bulb would come on and protest against all of it would begin.

5. I was wrong. The more dependent the people became on the corporately owned tube media for their information the more misled they became. And as in the takeover of our political institutions the mutually false blame game each side is corporately encouraged to play only confused them more and more. So now sports fans blame the SEC, or Big 10, or see it as a rights war between FOX and ESPN when they each work together to an extent, the same way as left blame right and right blames left, Red vs Blue, Poor vs Middle Class and vice versa. Nobody blames the 3%. Partly because they are faceless until you see a news story on the G Summit players. And it is their money and influence which drives it all, even armed conflict abroad. The people perish because there is no truth. Truth brings hope and clarity of vision, and all of us are living in one big dense fog of lie upon lie.

It's not about sports, football, basketball, or any of it. It's about a way forward for all in a world where increasingly the top 3% discuss how much better the planet would be with five billion less people on it.

Realignment is simply a recognition issue like a canary in a coal mine. If something so old and traditional and beloved as sports can be warped and twisted and the public does not rise up, well then as a society of concerned citizens we are toast. The assault on religion didn't do it. The assault on our history hasn't done it. The assault on the family didn't do it. I was wondering if the assault on our emotional escape, sports, would? Nope. It is depressing. And the only thing I care about now, my children and grandchildren, are my reason for pushing through. The internet is a blessing in that it allows a broader sampling of what the public is thinking, if they are thinking at all.

So, for me knowing a good deal of what has actually happened in realignment was a baseline of truth for determining the depth of national gullibility. And sociology and political science are in my background. It's been fascinating and disturbing. And the denial of what people should blame is proportionate to their belief of their inability to do anything about it. They choose to hold on to what they can, and hope things simply get better rather than to risk being singled out for demanding change. And because of it the fog of lies shall not lift. And that disappoints me because people are not inherently evil. They are basically good and want to believe in the right things regardless of their religious preference. They help neighbors, they are charitable, even, and sometimes especially, the poor are charitable even with what little they have. Our inclination is toward unity, but the powers know that an extreme minority can only maintain power through control of information and the spread of division and here we are.

See, its not about what you think it is about. And I'm not about ESPN or sports at all. Sports, and the love of them, is just one of the last touchstones of commonality we have been left to enjoy, and now that is being warped and threatened, and the public response is to blame the wrong people.

JR, you weren't completely wrong. I began reading some articles about how Fox was angry about having to cover for former President Trump, and I thought to myself, all this time I actually trusted some of these guys. It's sad when overseas news outlets can cover our news better than our own news outlets.
Having a legit third party in this country would be nice, but the money magnets won't have it!!! Instead of trying to establish a third party at the national level, maybe we need to look at the state & local levels first, and then go up from there. Minnesota did that once with Governor Ventura, maybe that is the blueprint we need to look at.
There are probably some legit third parties out there, even nationally, but when one really starts to make itself a force to be reckoned with, the money magnets drive it back to the established parties, and the new party becomes a part of an older party.

See Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party for two examples of driving back to establishment.

Also https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Ma...sia_Effect

Which is actually hilarious in how Wikipedia covers it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gell-...sia_effect

(03-08-2023 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 01:56 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 04:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 03:26 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 02:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the last available data until Aprill of this year when the 2021-2 fiscal year is reported. It was tainted data due to COVID. I suggest you use the "Different Way to Look At Realignment which sets a proportion of value each school represents to its conference. I analyze and consider all data, not just an isolated report. The SEC as a whole has more value and earns more total revenue and has better attendance, and I might add has a higher percentage of actual viewer against total possible viewers than even the Big 10. What you have are more affluent cities. It is what it is, and media revenue is but one facet in a portrait.

Cherry pick Oklahoma? How about Texas? How about A&M? Do all you Big Ten boys love to set up false equivalencies as a form of argumentation? Why don't you compare Georgia and Alabama to Michigan and Ohio State? Then toss in Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, and go right down the line. Most years Michigan and Ohio State are somewhere between first and fourth depending upon the year. Alabama is in the mix as is Texas. Notre Dame hangs around 7th or 8th. Try using some logic in your methodology. If you found my own data for 2020-1 revenue you were right there to look at the rest. I guess Michigan and Ohio State representing 36.7% of the total Big Ten value didn't strike you as, well, disproportionate? It is the second highest discrepancy among the P5 conferences behind Texas and Oklahoma's total value compared to the rest of the Big 12. The Big 10 has 5 to 6 solid brands that fit into any top 30 revenue producers. The middle down is quite a bit softer. That same section of schools pulls down your attendance. You have the 3 top attendance schools in the nation but lag the SEC significantly in attendance average. That's a big rump to drag around, and another future liability.

This consolidation, which is about to happen, if it does indeed happen, will last for a while. But, it is not the last. There will be another and conferences will not be factor when it occurs. The sport is dying, basketball is receding, just not as fast, and as it does the upper tier will shrink and the top brands with the largest followings will consolidate further. I likely will not be around when it does but it is coming. I'd say 15 to 20 years you'll start seeing and hearing talk of that direction.

I'm used to this. I've caught paid posters from the Big 10 office influencing conversations before. Tracked one IP right to the office. I don't know if you are or aren't, but you follow the M.O. It doesn't matter, facts are facts and spin is spin, and all the talk on message boards in the world isn't going to change the direction we are headed. What was spoken of by Bryant and McKay in the early 70's is coming to fruition thanks to what has transpired since OU/UGa vs NCAA. The money and the law are finally forcing a for pay upper tier. The uncertainty and overhead are driving the moves. Amateurism is dead and lying, cheating, and forcing kids to become tax dodgers is dying with it. I welcome the light and a pathway for the kids to be above board instead of forced into the shadowy side of recruitment. It's a bit late, but better late than never. But it's going to cost and that cost and the uncertainty over more outstanding court cases are driving consolidation. Every penny of duplicated expense and every buck earned are now seen as essential. And the Athletic / Academic model in the Big 10 is in for a big adjustment, it is elsewhere as well, but philosophically it won't be as drastic.

Study all that data and get back to me. I think your perspective will be a bit clearer and hopefully your arguments no made of straw and smoke.

Lol. A non-accusation accusation that I'm a paid Big Ten poster. You sound like CNN shrieking about anyone that disagrees with them being a Kremlin asset.

As to "I guess Michigan and Ohio State representing 36.7% of the total Big Ten value didn't strike you as, well, disproportionate?" no, it doesn't strike me as disproportionate at all. You just keep revealing how little you understand about the Big Ten. The Wall Street journal's valuation of universities as if they were pro sports teams has zero bearing on what decisions those schools are making. I guess Michigan and Ohio State would rather, instead of playing in Chicago, DC, NYC, LA, Minneapolis, Pitt/Philly, you know, where their alumni all all, play in Starkville or Nashville or Knoxville or Columbia (either). And the UT OU analog is poor because Texas saw ZERO of the conference as institutional peers, and only sees Oklahoma as a football peer. This is not the case in the Big Ten with Michigan and Ohio State. Texas viewed Baylor as a worthless anchor only in the conference due to political pressure - Michigan does not feel this way about Northwestern.

You keep saying stuff like every penny is essential yet Michigan refuses all in stadium advertising. ND values independence over more money in a conference. Penn State donors funded a hockey team, and it was the same amount A&M will pay to buyout Fisher someday soon. The Texas schools just need more of those essential pennies, then they'll figure it all out in football, just wait. But hey, take pride in being part of a conference that has people embezzle money from hospitals to buy recruits (https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...zzlement). That's not gross at all, what a great cultural advantage.

And you'll continue to be wrong because all you think the SEC has some master plan to be the world's best semi pro athletic conference, and literally no one except the SEC wants that future.
Let the SEC screw off to play pretend pro sports and send Vanderbilt to the ACC. The Big Ten isn't going to destroy what it stands for to chase 10 years of slightly incremental athletics revenue that doesn't move the needle for them and won't change their performance on the field anyway. Michigan, OsU, and PSU will be perfectly happy to go 10-2 or 11-1 and then eventually lose to whatever the best SEC team is in the playoff. This has been the status quo for 20 years and it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.

Well for an alleged Vanderbilt fan you sure spend a helluva lot of time arguing Big 10 positions.

And BeepBeep, I haven't been wrong. It's the Big 10 view of the world that is upside down sport. You, we, everyone is headed to the same place with this. Amateurism is dead, professionalism is in, and we, meaning the Big 10 too, by a Scotus ruling are very likely to apply it in the form of pay, to go along with the NIL endorsement money which is anything but amateur. So I'd say the WSJ valuations are apropos. And I'd say your notion of the Big 10's separate way is a lot of hooey. I don't see Ohio State and Penn State giving up big time college football and I don't see them playing in a more Ivy styled lesser league, which by the way the Ivy League is now under lawsuit for failure to give scholarships. What a fascinating modern world we live in if our minds are not living in the Victorian era!

And you missed my statement...again. I didn't say Michigan and Ohio State would be in the SEC or playing in Starkville. I very plainly stated another consolidation would happen down the road in 15 to 20 years and it wouldn't have anything to do with conferences. So, you are creating another straw man rather than admit you are wrong. You must be under 35 because nobody educated before that time period makes these kinds of representations. I don't care where you went to school the education is lacking. I saw the same things in graduate work when I was at Emory. And I know the Big 10. I spent my early life in the U.P. at Sault Sainte Marie and on the other side in Kapuskasing, Ontario.

Where did I say the SEC had a master plan? More BS from you! What has been called that by Frank is the fact that I had family involved in the realignment in '90-92 and I simply knew who we went after then and we've stayed after them and have all of them other than Clemson for which South Carolina was a substitute and Florida State. Looks like that may happen too. We'll see.

And as for Big 10 shills they were used on the Maryland site in 2010-11, on the Oklahoma site more recently, and that is where an IP trace took the line to the Big 10 in Chicago. So, I guess I have reason huh? Your talking points are all the ham-handed ones I've gotten from them before. Frank has his own ideas, he's okay. The office boys and gals stick to the sheet right down to the terminology. Guilty dogs bark!

Good luck. Heck I may wind up right about a 3x24 and I put that out about 2 years ago and about 6 months before Wilner ran with it. It just seemed logical for addressing issues pertaining to the remnant. I was right about the B1G raid on the PAC 12. So much for partners and friends. High standards indeed! Seriously, you'll rescue the core and that counts.

Don't full yourself though about Big 10 standards. You had them. The court rulings are blowing them away, for all of us. But I also followed recruiting violations for over a decade. Everyone who recruited the region I worked cheated. Only Vanderbilt and Duke, neither of which was trying in those days stayed clean, with one more exception. Kudos to Bill Curry at Ga Tech. I never found anything on him, and I'm pretty sure it was because he was clean. So don't lecture me on Big 10 standards. I know better.

It's amusing to me that in your hurry to declare me a paid propogandist for the Big Ten, and thus be able to easily dismiss my arguments on the basis (ignoring your impugning of my education), you miss the entire point that a Vanderbilt fan WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH SIMILAR POSITIONS AS THE BIG TEN. It should be obvious that this path of SEC expansion has given us more money (that we don't need) at the cost of decreasing our odds to win titles while (if you're correct) hastening the day of consolidation at which point we're conference shopping. Name a way that Vanderbilt is better off today competing in conference athletics than it was in 1985, 1995, 2005, etc. Spoiler alert, it's not better off.

Besides, how do we know you're not a paid shill for ESPN? I keep hearing ham handed talking points about ESPN/Disney forming a monopoly on ads rates in the south east, why is this something a fan should care about? You know that in 2034/35 it's possible that the SEC leaves ESPN/Disney for money from another broadcaster right? They aren't irrevocably married. Why are you such an ardent supporter of the SEC taking actions that help ESPN/Disney so much? Especially given your argument that sports rights demographically collapse in 2036+, so why is it so important to destroy what exists today to squeeze out a little extra money for 12 years? See, that's how I know you're well over 35, you are a big fan of destroying to extract that last tiny bits of value for your favored entities as opposed to doing anything sustainable, and those that come after you can pick up the pieces to rebuild. Heaven forbid we don't grab every last dollar available.

1. I dismiss your arguments for their incoherency and lack of logic.

2. I am retired from a corporate life which only tangentially touched on athletics and retired from a nonprofit life which was wholly focused away from anything corporate or educational.

3. Life afforded me opportunities to experience exactly what happens in making deals at the corporate level, and exactly how government operates with the marginalized, as well as non profit organizations which were essentially corporate. And having relations involved in athletic realignment became an interest for me because I knew how near and dear they were to the hearts of devoted alumni regardless of conference affiliation and I saw what was essentially a hostile corporate takeover of them in action and was fascinated by the lack of recognition as to what was going on, their inability to see how the lure of money was being used to create new associations (product placement), how some SKUs where being culled, and the only thing these college educated fans could see to do was blame each other's conference.

4. My disappointment was in the fact that nobody tagged the corporate raiders for what was happening. Since the same has gone on against middle class business in this country for the last half of my life, and the wealth here has moved in my lifetime from 85% of the capital being held by the top 3% to 97% of it being held by the top 3% I had hoped that when universally beloved and cherished institutions which served as communal touchstones to a common heritage for so many were screwed with to such a high degree by the same entities which were destroying private business and eroding their way of life that a light bulb would come on and protest against all of it would begin.

5. I was wrong. The more dependent the people became on the corporately owned tube media for their information the more misled they became. And as in the takeover of our political institutions the mutually false blame game each side is corporately encouraged to play only confused them more and more. So now sports fans blame the SEC, or Big 10, or see it as a rights war between FOX and ESPN when they each work together to an extent, the same way as left blames right and right blames left, Red vs Blue, Poor vs Middle Class, pro gay vs anti gay, race vs race, and vice versa. Nobody blames the 3%. Partly because they are faceless until you see a news story on the G Summit players. And it is their money and influence which drives it all, even armed conflict abroad. The people perish because there is no truth. Truth brings hope and clarity of vision, and all of us are living in one big dense fog of lie upon lie.

It's not about sports, football, basketball, or any of it. It's about a way forward for all in a world where increasingly the top 3% discuss how much better the planet would be with five billion less people on it.

Realignment is simply a recognition issue like a canary in a coal mine. If something so old and traditional and beloved as sports can be warped and twisted and the public does not rise up, well then as a society of concerned citizens we are toast. The assault on religion didn't do it. The assault on our history hasn't done it. The assault on the family didn't do it. I was wondering if the assault on our emotional escape, sports, would? Nope. It is depressing. And the only thing I care about now, my children and grandchildren, are my reason for pushing through. The internet is a blessing in that it allows a broader sampling of what the public is thinking, if they are thinking at all.

So, for me knowing a good deal of what has actually happened in realignment was a baseline of truth for determining the depth of national gullibility. And sociology and political science are in my background. It's been fascinating and disturbing. And the denial of what people should blame is proportionate to their belief of their inability to do anything about it. They choose to hold on to what they can, and hope things simply get better rather than to risk being singled out for demanding change. And because of it the fog of lies shall not lift. And that disappoints me because people are not inherently evil. They are basically good and want to believe in the right things regardless of their religious preference. They help neighbors, they are charitable, even, and sometimes especially, the poor are charitable even with what little they have. Our inclination is toward unity, but the powers know that an extreme minority can only maintain power through control of information and the spread of division and here we are.

See, it's not about what you think it is about. And I'm not about ESPN or sports at all. Sports, and the love of them, is just one of the last touchstones of commonality we have been left to enjoy, and now that is being warped and threatened, and the public response is to blame the wrong people.

Most of my arguments here are intended to do one thing, focus the posters to look again at what is really going on, how corporations actually work, and for them law is a tool to formalize their plans, not an obstacle. And fear and greed work to their advantage. It is after all the first temptation of Christ, "Bow down and worship me, and I can give you all the kingdoms of the world." Couple that with the love of money is the root of all evil and it explains it pretty well. The bottom line is to stop it we must first take on those who gain by dividing us, who don't wish us to cooperate, or share, and to quit allowing them to control us with the lure of things they will never really let anyone possess.

Well said.

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:33 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  The idea that Kentucky or Vandy (two founding members) would be traded away by the SEC goes to show just how little understanding there is of the loyalty amongst the founding members.

If a school wants/needs to walk away on their own like Tulane, GT, or Suwanee did, certainly they won't stop them, but the SEC will not trade away founding members, if they'd trade anyone away at all.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:33 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  The idea that Kentucky or Vandy (two founding members) would be traded away by the SEC goes to show just how little understanding there is of the loyalty amongst the founding members.

If a school wants/needs to walk away on their own like Tulane, GT, or Suwanee did, certainly they won't stop them, but the SEC will not trade away founding members, if they'd trade anyone away at all.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

Possibly, but such preferred treatment "could" breed discontent amongst the others in the conference.

But framed as between FSU and Kentucky, might forestall that somewhat.

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:33 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  The idea that Kentucky or Vandy (two founding members) would be traded away by the SEC goes to show just how little understanding there is of the loyalty amongst the founding members.

If a school wants/needs to walk away on their own like Tulane, GT, or Suwanee did, certainly they won't stop them, but the SEC will not trade away founding members, if they'd trade anyone away at all.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:33 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  The idea that Kentucky or Vandy (two founding members) would be traded away by the SEC goes to show just how little understanding there is of the loyalty amongst the founding members.

If a school wants/needs to walk away on their own like Tulane, GT, or Suwanee did, certainly they won't stop them, but the SEC will not trade away founding members, if they'd trade anyone away at all.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

(03-09-2023 06:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

Rivals are where the money is.

(03-09-2023 07:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

Rivals are where the money is.

Make up your mind.....regional rivalries or money, you can't have it both ways.

(03-10-2023 08:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 07:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

Rivals are where the money is.

Make up your mind.....regional rivalries or money, you can't have it both ways.

why not?

(03-10-2023 08:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 07:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

Rivals are where the money is.

Make up your mind.....regional rivalries or money, you can't have it both ways.

Um, Kentucky is not getting more money moving to the ACC...it would be a nice tightening of the belt reminiscent of getting sent to fat camp. The significantly increased payday, however, would be one of the huge factors in Florida State having motivation to move to the SEC in the first place.

But Lance, I will give you credit where credit is due. You are one of the most imaginative and skilled individuals I have ever seen online when it comes to obfuscation.

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:33 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  The idea that Kentucky or Vandy (two founding members) would be traded away by the SEC goes to show just how little understanding there is of the loyalty amongst the founding members.

If a school wants/needs to walk away on their own like Tulane, GT, or Suwanee did, certainly they won't stop them, but the SEC will not trade away founding members, if they'd trade anyone away at all.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Are you speaking of football or basketball rivals?
If you are talking basketball:
From what I can see, Kentucky hasn't had much competition (basketball) within the SEC. Even the records vs Tennessee and Florida favor the 'Cats 2 to 1 for those two teams.
Kentucky is 17-25 vs. Carolina and only has a one game advantage (12-11) vs. Duke.

Why would ESPN want to have Kentucky in the most competitive situation in basketball? I guess for the same reason that some SEC posters justify moving FSU to the SEC. More big games mean more big numbers of viewers and more money for everybody.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statist...cords.html

It’s really a shame Kentucky and Indiana don’t play annually anymore. It’s a series that needs to be played

(03-12-2023 05:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s really a shame Kentucky and Indiana don’t play annually anymore. It’s a series that needs to be played

Get rid of the six win requirement for bowls.

(03-12-2023 01:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...o-the-acc/

"They wanted us to come on and join their league," Newton said. "I thought, with the way (UK) football was (struggling in the SEC), that might have been the best path for us. I always felt like (Florida State) was an SEC school in the ACC and Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC."


Some situations do not change over time.

Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Are you speaking of football or basketball rivals?
If you are talking basketball:
From what I can see, Kentucky hasn't had much competition (basketball) within the SEC. Even the records vs Tennessee and Florida favor the 'Cats 2 to 1 for those two teams.
Kentucky is 17-25 vs. Carolina and only has a one game advantage (12-11) vs. Duke.

Why would ESPN want to have Kentucky in the most competitive situation in basketball? I guess for the same reason that some SEC posters justify moving FSU to the SEC. More big games mean more big numbers of viewers and more money for everybody.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statist...cords.html

I was referring to basketball, but since you're a B1G fan, why not push Kentucky to the B1G?? Manifest Destiny for the B1G???

(03-12-2023 06:46 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-12-2023 01:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 06:07 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Kudos for finding that reference! : )

That said, I do think current circumstances are kinda unique.

However - If the move is to swap Kentucky and FSU - and both schools are genuinely happy with the idea - then let them swap.

But I don't know that Kentucky would be happy with the revenue decrease.

I wonder if a UCLA-style kickback ($10M-ish) from FSU until the end of the current SEC contract, might grease the wheels.

It does make for an interesting idea to ponder...

One does have to wonder that if ESPN could justify moving Florida State to the SEC and pay for it in increased revenue because of SEC matchups, wouldn't the same be true of moving Kentucky to the ACC where they would have multiple matchups annually with the likes of Duke, Syracuse, Virginia and Carolina on the hardwood?

The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Are you speaking of football or basketball rivals?
If you are talking basketball:
From what I can see, Kentucky hasn't had much competition (basketball) within the SEC. Even the records vs Tennessee and Florida favor the 'Cats 2 to 1 for those two teams.
Kentucky is 17-25 vs. Carolina and only has a one game advantage (12-11) vs. Duke.

Why would ESPN want to have Kentucky in the most competitive situation in basketball? I guess for the same reason that some SEC posters justify moving FSU to the SEC. More big games mean more big numbers of viewers and more money for everybody.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statist...cords.html

I was referring to basketball, but since you're a B1G fan, why not push Kentucky to the B1G?? Manifest Destiny for the B1G???

When did that happen?

(03-10-2023 09:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 08:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 07:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 06:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 02:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The vast majority of Kentucky's rivals are in the SEC, with one being on the B1G (Indiana) & another o the ACC (Louisville). I'm sure that Kentucky enjoys playing all of them, but Tennessee & Florida are to Kentucky what Virginia & Duke are to Carolina.(North)

Rivals? I was told this thing was all about money. Are you now trying to change the narrative?

Rivals are where the money is.

Make up your mind.....regional rivalries or money, you can't have it both ways.

why not?

USC and UCLA's rivals are on the West Coast.
Penn State and Maryland's rivals are in the ACC.
Nebraska's #1 rival will soon be in the SEC.
No team the Big Ten has added since there were, you know, 10 teams, has been to gain regional rivalries. If anything, they've been broken up -- for money.

Meanwhile, the sport of college football suffers the death of a thousand cuts...

(03-12-2023 05:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s really a shame Kentucky and Indiana don’t play annually anymore. It’s a series that needs to be played

When the folks at Maryland squealed about the talks going on between the ACC and Penn State and other B1G schools one of the interesting tidbits that emerged was a disagreement within the ACC over the "other" school(s).
It was rumored that some in the ACC favored Purdue, while others (including Carolina) wanted Indiana included instead.

Of course this was all pre-Louisville, but could you imagine a conference with a basketball alignment that included Indiana, Kentucky, Louisville, Duke, and Carolina.